my stephanie j nelson problem...and ours

Sat, 22 Jan 1994 23:54:54 EST

four words of the subject line came from. How I was going to write this
post just got changed from when I was in a good mood in a boy-gets-girl
phase of the script which believe me was well-earned over the phone:
[2:15am] "[cracking voice] I think I have to get off the phone."
"I think you should have your screaming fit, you'll feel a lot better."
[3:20am] "[screaming fit]"
"[comforting affectionate mumbles]"
"[becalmed bliss all around]"

...but having checked my mail am in another boy-loses-girl phase, so am
reinserting from "...still not forgiven for the last occasion, when she
affected never to have heard of Red Baiting, perhaps having grown up in
the LA entertainment industry in a selectively comatose state when HUAC
folklore was passed around. On said occasion, when her confederate smeared
me as, "a typical academic Marxist," a subculture (Progressive Sociologists
Network) which has actually expelled me hurling dead cats and rotten eggs.
No, she accused me of "homophobia." While her partner in "defensive networking"
had crossed my mind as an [anal sphincter], the meaning was of an utterly
unrelated character. The writer has the choice on such occasions of the
gamut, contrived, forced, strained, fabricated, disingenuous, misprepresented,
frivolous, malicious, lie, outright lie, dirty lying smear. What's true, is
that it was a lie, so why not go with the truth, dirty lying smear.

Such charges of thoughtcrime are wholly for purposes of snobbery and
class persecution, an encoding of "We don't want your kind around here,
look at your manners, if you belonged in our neighborhood, you'd have
sufficient dense interaction to be indistinguishable from us. But no,
you stink up the joint with your [inferiority][lack of occupation at all].

I'm guilty. Nothing to be done about it. Now, you, collectively, may
argue with the characterization on the basis of my cognitive capacity being
UNDEFINED on the basis of the same social inferiority which invites the
smear in the first place, but I doubt that a single one of you can argue
against the evidence: Smears and lies and misreadings of ambiguities in
posts are pure and simple biases of cognitive superiority based on claims
to refinement reflective of occupational prestige with the socioeconomic
status to back it up. The rare exceptions, which are attributed to absensce
of smirk icons to disambiguate the text, reflect either laziness in going
over the writing styles of much larger numbers of unfamiliar people; or
disambiguation skills must be developed the way you do with the term papers
you get handed in. I prefer the latter; you start with me. [end reinsertion]

Stephanie J. Nelson always gets the words correctly, but sometimes omits
the meaning. That for the ditty, that is, the underlying cause wherefor the
sentiments expressed in the ditty are the effect, appear in brackets.

>Higomous hogomous, women are monogomous [hypergamous]
>Hogomous higomous, men are polygamous [hypogamous]

The strong case, in the strongest form stated by a card-carrying woman
(which I find permits women to cite it with approval as Reality yet also
charge me with sexism should I do so) is Jessie Bernard, The Future of
Marriage, pp 25-6. Directly applicable to myself, this entailed a quest
for a soulmate at least as [epithet of your choice here] as myself. At
last what in former centuries was called The Right Girl materialized in
the guise of Dr. Elizabeth N. Hubbard, PhD, author of the tract, "The
Natural Sovereignty of Womankind," 1992, with her photo on the back cover
which will be of interest to researchers in "Self-representation Iconography
Among Feminist Theorists" or collectors of dirty pictures.

Stephanie J. Nelson is very good in all sorts of interpretation - will
not use the d-word - of texts; but failed somehow to become aware that any
post mentioning or alluding to Lizzy Hubbard suddenly became a text, or
part of a text. This transpired when I sent a pack of correspondence to
my fellow toad, Allan Adler, whom you might recall with a shudder, now
in Paris (France, not Ontario), containing assorted weird letters and the
odd post, mainly back and forth with Lizzy and back and forth with another
woman trying to save me from Lizzy's clutches as alleged pro-Lifer (not
impossibly for same tragic reason as is Stephanie J. Nelson), with scenes
like this (D. to L.):

> The most selfish thing danny did in amherst ma with lizzy was to make
>latter wait in car while he bought copy of Andrea Dworkin, Intercourse,
>1987 from Women's Studies section; did quickie search with string, "women
>want," found under "women still want," and did with lizzy pp. 126, 128 ff.
> That is, politically correct sex. Which bored us both so badly we didn't
>bother with it much thereafter. But wasn't much different from DAF SOP
>anyhow, what a relief.
> "Where did you learn to be such a sensitive lover?"
> "Undersocialization."

Paris to Stony Brook:

>however, have a friend who is a writer and who needs to hand in a
>short story to a publisher real quick. If we change all the names,
>would that be OK?

Stony Brook to Paris:
> You have blanket permission to let your friend hand it in even with
>names unchanged. This should be in accord with the back cover photo of

> Urgency of publication is necessity to allude to material as "text."
>I am on record on two lists to effect that "text is constituted as such
>in capitalism by getting paid for." Never said anything about who got paid
>for it.

> Is there interest in prequel and or sequel material of comparable

Now, for the first time in my years on the air, everything going out
on the Ethernet was potential *text*, which rendered anything even remotely
related to my exclusively keyboard existence might mean royalties, possibly
movie rights, to some nameless writer in Paris. *For this reason alone* the
fact, known on ANTHRO-L to seeker1, zeek, and DFOSS that on <Leri@gossip.> Lizzy was the much-reviled Doctress Neutopia took on importance
possible only to a victim of cybersolipsism such as myself and, just perhaps,
one other person, who, just imaginably, taking my arcane gesture for proof
of what she calls "Unconditional Love," might, well, forget it....


Daniel A. Foss [serious part in the next one]